Цитата:
Сообщение от qwerty
The twentieth century has given so many new ideas, how many did not give the entire previous history. This is understandable: before the twentieth century was a mapping mission of the artist's reality, and a measure of skill of the artist was a "similarity", which is why many geniuses, departing from the accepted canon, and have not been too successful in life. In the twentieth century with the invention of non-figurative art and the slogan "art for art's sake" everything changed, and the first half-century gave rise to the Masters, making art is not for sale, which distinguishes them from all previous generations.
Here is a good idea to define the term "depth of spirit." ...
I have this so that everyone their world: to me Filonov, of course, higher the Rembrandt, but I totally understand the position of those who believe the contrary, it depends on the internal tuning fork, at which wave it is configured.
|
In art little put forward the idea, it is desirable to implement, so much so that the materialization of the idea had an equally persuasive force, as its wording. And then the seams: if you compare the substantive work of artists from 20c. and their theoretical manifestos, it is visible to the naked eye, large discrepancies.
If we agree that in the past there were "many geniuses, departing from accepted canons" - even at the cost of prosperity in life, you have to admit that no 1st half 20c. "gave rise to the Masters, making art is not for sale." Indeed, since the Renaissance, some masters (Leonardo da Vinci and Rembrandt among them) can sometimes allow myself the pleasure to anoint something for yourself, or - equivalently - for the sake of art. " (By the way, the slogan of "art for art's sake" marched across Europe is already in 1st half of 19th century). Even if you do not touch the issues on the lability of the canons and freedom within the canon (and even within an order), it is obvious that not all artists were up to 20c in hopeless bondage to mimesis.
Age 20y stunned by an abundance of ideas, and artists become like Ali Baba cave of treasures: take what you want - but do not forget the spell that opens doors from the world of ideas in the world of art. But many of the spell is either forgotten, or uttered with a false tone, whether considered taboo. I assume that this is a magic word after all "spirit" - although now it is commonly regarded as pop-cultural memom or cobblestone cultural imperialism. Of course, this is something subtle - something like the wave function of the "inner tuning fork."
Цитата:
Сообщение от qwerty
In my opinion, this is too categorical statement, since the Wizards listed belong to disjoint sets, it's totally different, disparate material.
|
Mnozhestvennnosti idea of parallel worlds of art (with disjoint sets of the works of masters and systems of interpretation of their work) is quite entertaining, but I generally closer to the idea of a multidimensional model of art, where artists and works by comparing all the same possible - because this is one space. However, analysis of reasons, circumstances and conditions for such comparisons, bad fits in the genre of forum gatherings.